Riley v. Colantuono et al

Filing 34

ERROR FILED IN WRONG CASE.ORDER: Without objection, Attorney Wiberg's motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Attorney Wiberg's oral motion and RESET the plaintiffs deadline nunc pro tunc to October 31, 2012, to allow for the receipt and docketing of his objection is GRANTED. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge John H. Rich III.(ko) Modified on 10/26/2012 to add: ERROR FILED IN WRONG CASE.(ko).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DANIEL JOHN RILEY,
Plaintiff
v.
JAMES ALLANDYDY, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-cv-218-GZS

REPORT OF HEARING AND ORDER
RE: MOTION TO WITHDRAW
Held in Portland, Maine, by telephone on October 24, 2012, at 1:35 p.m.
Presiding:

John H. Rich III, United States Magistrate Judge

Appearances:

For the Plaintiff: Sven Wiberg, Esq.
For the Defendants: David Plourde, Esq.

The telephone conference was held, at my request, to discuss Attorney Wiberg’s motion to
withdraw as the plaintiff’s counsel, see ECF No. 56, including whether the plaintiff required
additional time either to obtain substitute counsel or to file a pro se objection to my report and
recommended decision on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, see ECF No. 53. I had
earlier granted a companion motion by Attorney Wiberg to extend by 10 days, to October 20, 2012,
the plaintiff’s deadline to file that objection. See ECF No. 57.
Attorney Wiberg reported that it is his understanding that the plaintiff mailed a pro se
objection to my recommended decision on October 19, 2012, but that the plaintiff likely did require
1

additional time. Upon ascertaining that the objection had not yet been docketed as of the time of the
teleconference, and without objection, I GRANTED Attorney Wiberg’s oral motion and RESET the
plaintiff’s deadline nunc pro tunc to October 31, 2012, to allow for the receipt and docketing of his
objection. Without objection, I then GRANTED Attorney Wiberg’s motion to withdraw as the
plaintiff’s counsel.
SO ORDERED.

CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE
A.

This report fairly reflects the actions taken at the hearing and shall be filed
forthwith.

B.

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a party may serve and file an
objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a
copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to review by the district court and to any further appeal of this order.

Dated this 24th day of October, 2012.
/s/ John H. Rich III
John H. Rich III
United States Magistrate Judge

2